[Improvement] Use safe constructor with snake yaml

[EricGao888]

Purpose of the pull request

Brief change log

Verify this pull request

This pull request is code cleanup without any test coverage.

(or)

This pull request is already covered by existing tests, such as (please describe tests).

(or)

This change added tests and can be verified as follows:

(or)

If your pull request contain incompatible change, you should also add it to docs/docs/en/guide/upgrede/incompatible.md

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 25.00000% with 9 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 40.45%. Comparing base (7c8fa9b) to head (fd251c7). Report is 1 commits behind head on dev.

:exclamation: Current head fd251c7 differs from pull request most recent head f606e31. Consider uploading reports for the commit f606e31 to get more accurate results

Files	Patch %	Lines
...scheduler/common/utils/ClassFilterConstructor.java	0.00%	9 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                dev   #15758      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     40.46%   40.45%   -0.01%     
- Complexity     5195     5196       +1     
============================================
  Files          1378     1379       +1     
  Lines         46084    46093       +9     
  Branches       4923     4924       +1     
============================================
+ Hits          18646    18648       +2     
- Misses        25512    25518       +6     
- Partials       1926     1927       +1     

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[EricGao888]

This is a case where unit test is helpful and should be mandatory, to verify that the nested types can be parsed without error. Can you add some?

Sure

[sonarqubecloud[bot]]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
21.4% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 60%)

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[Liyw979]

I am new to DS and have a question here. Login users are allowed to exectue code on worker side by default, then do we still need to worring about security issues inside modules of org.apache.dolphinscheduler.plugin.task?

[an5er]

I am new to DS and have a question here. Login users are allowed to exectue code on worker side by default, then do we still need to worring about security issues inside modules of org.apache.dolphinscheduler.plugin.task?

I think it's normal for the server to execute certain commands to the worker. However, security issues such as those in the org.apache.dolphinscheduler.plugin.task module affect the server, not the worker.

[Liyw979]

Hi @an5er ,do you mean that https://github.com/apache/dolphinscheduler/blob/08ac1322864edf42903c7c03942fcad62c37da35/dolphinscheduler-task-plugin/dolphinscheduler-task-api/src/main/java/org/apache/dolphinscheduler/plugin/task/api/k8s/impl/K8sTaskExecutor.java#L143-L149 runs on the master machine?

[an5er]

Hi @an5er ,do you mean that

https://github.com/apache/dolphinscheduler/blob/08ac1322864edf42903c7c03942fcad62c37da35/dolphinscheduler-task-plugin/dolphinscheduler-task-api/src/main/java/org/apache/dolphinscheduler/plugin/task/api/k8s/impl/K8sTaskExecutor.java#L143-L149

runs on the master machine?

No, it runs on the machine where the dolphinscheduler is deployed, not in the k8s cluster.

[caishunfeng]

This is a case where unit test is helpful and should be mandatory, to verify that the nested types can be parsed without error. Can you add some?

Sure

@EricGao888 will you update this pr?

[EricGao888]

This is a case where unit test is helpful and should be mandatory, to verify that the nested types can be parsed without error. Can you add some?

Sure

@EricGao888 will you update this pr?

Yes, but later this week. Quite busy recently. 😢

[EricGao888]

This is a case where unit test is helpful and should be mandatory, to verify that the nested types can be parsed without error. Can you add some?

Tests added.

[sonarqubecloud[bot]]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
18.8% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 60%)

See analysis details on SonarCloud